On 05/22/2015 06:12 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Thanks for the context!
S: Yes, my first sentence was meant to be TPG-specific. I lost that in
editing right before I hit "send".
Restricted access on mwfoundation is a pretty good argument for not
going there.
Having "one" place to go sounds good in theory, but at least as a
foundation employee I find myself bouncing between several wikis, so I
don't feel like we have achieved that.
It does seem like if the foundation is focused on the software, then
having all the teams on mediawiki would be reasonable. But since we do
so much non-software community work, and so much non-software technical
work, meta sounds appealing. Shifting from mw.o to meta would actually
be moving toward community, as opposed to splitting away from it.
However, I have spent almost no time on meta, so that's purely a snap
response.
Currently, the Search & Discovery department is working on 3 projects:
Cirrus/text search, maps, and Wikidata Query Service. Of those, I think
only one is actually "mediawiki" work, which is part of what inspired my
question.
On what basis? Maps and Wikidata are also technical projects, using
PostgreSQL, OSM software, WikiBase, graph software, etc. I don't see
why they would be considered unrelated to MediaWiki software.
The other part is that the TPG is starting to work with
non-Engineering teams within the foundation, and thus is working more
and more on non-mediawiki stuff. I suppose it depends on how broadly you
define "MediaWiki".
I agree. TPG is a border-line case, and it would be reasonable to put
on Meta (I wouldn't vehemently oppose putting software development team
pages on Meta, but it makes it more complicated since sometimes team and
technial pages overlap).
I was putting myself in the shoes of a non-foundation mediawiki
developer. Certainly I would care about Cirrus Search, but would I care
about maps?
Of course. This is a killer app, very useful for both WMF and
third-party wikis. Right now, people have to use annoyingly
non-interactive maps screenshots, or one-off gadgets. MediaWiki is not
supposed to be just text and bitmaps (hence, *Media*Wiki). Maps are the
next step in media.
Would I care about the TPG? And, in fact, we have had
pushback when naming our new department pages in mediawiki. Both
Editing[1] and Search & Discovery[2] have been criticized in their
Discussion pages.
Yes, these names need to be fixed. Same with Collaboration.
Matt Flaschen
_______________________________________________
teampractices mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
